Re: Multiple markings

[David Sumbler]

On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler <address@hidden>:

<snip>

> > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > not
> > allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
> > 
> > If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we
> > could
> > have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as
> > the
> > existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers.  E.g. could
> > we
> > have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?
> > 
> > David
> 
> 
> To add my 2cts:
> 
> Consider:
> 
> <<
>   \new Staff {
>         R1
>         \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
>         \mark "whatever"
>         R1
>   }
>   \new Staff {
>         R1
>         \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
>         \mark "whatever-else"
>         R1
>   }
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> Where and how should the RehearsalMark(s) be printed?

I cannot envisage a situation where that would be required.  The Marks
are in a Score context, and are normally only printed once in the score
(usually at the top).  In most cases we put the same marking in every
instrument's input so that the Mark will appear in the the individual
parts as well, if that is what we want.

I cannot see why you would want to have different score-wide Marks
specified in different parts.  But if you did, I would expect them to
be formatted exactly as specified.  If they then conflict, that seems
to me to be the editor's problem more than Lilypond's.

> Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds?
> 
> (1)
> \mark \markup <\[center-]column> <args>
> (already mentioned)
> 
> (2)
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976
> or
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977
> 
> (3)
> http://old.nabble.com/Nice-workaround-for-simultaneous-rehearsal-mark
> s-%E2%80%93-thanks-Neil!-td32212763.html

The last doesn't seem to be reachable, but I found it at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html

I shall need some time to study these (and it won't be tonight!), but
thanks very much for pointing me to them.

The fact that these workarounds exist prompts the question: if the
problem can be worked around, why must we continue to have a problem to
work around?  (If you see what I mean.)

David